Board and staff weigh SMART‑bond close‑out options; staff recommends hybrid PMO and asks for authority to negotiate

District facilities staff on March 4 briefed the board on options to complete the SMART bond and transition remaining capital work into the district capital program. The presentation outlined three approaches: a short extension of the existing AECOM contract, a piggyback on a Duval County agreement (Jacobs), or a new competitive procurement and internal staff augmentation.

Why it matters: The SMART bond program has been long running and community confidence in project delivery is a high priority for the district if it pursues future capital referendums. Staff said a pragmatic combination of internal hires and an outside program‑management team would accelerate project delivery and preserve continuity.

What staff presented: Wanda Paul, the district’s chief operating and facilities officer, said the district currently manages nearly 90 active projects internally and that staff capacity limits were a key bottleneck. Atkins Realis, the scheduling consultant brought in to model program completion, projected that — at the current pace — about 100–103 SMART projects would still be incomplete by the program end date of Oct. 31, 2025. That projection motivated staff to outline a hybrid approach: hire additional in‑house capacity while using a program‑management firm (PMO) on a flexible basis (staff augmentation) to scale up or down as needed.

Three procurement paths described: • 6‑month extension of the current AECOM contract (one‑time extension available under the existing agreement) while staff issues an RFQ for a new PMO; or • Piggyback on a Duval County PMO contract with Jacobs while negotiating local‑firm and MWBE participation and lower fees; or • Move immediately to a competitive RFQ (new PMO) and expand in‑house staffing, then use selected PMO for multi‑year management.

Staff: Paul said the Duval/Jacobs piggyback provides a faster route but cautioned the board about contract details: piggyback agreements typically require the district to accept the material terms of the originating contract; fees may be negotiated downward but not upward. Legal counsel and staff said they would ask Jacobs for a written opinion about the ability to include the district’s current local subconsultants under a piggyback arrangement; staff stressed that retaining local subs is a district priority.

Board reaction and next steps: Trustees debated speed versus control. Several board members said they wanted continuity — retaining local subconsultants who already know project sites — and recommended an aggressive schedule for a new RFQ so a competitively procured PMO could be in place quickly. One trustee urged an “all‑hands” approach: hire internal capacity, keep current subs, and run a short RFQ to select a new PMO.

Legal and procurement constraints: General counsel explained that a piggyback contract constrains the district to the originating agreement’s material terms. Staff said they will ask Jacobs for a legal opinion and will not recommend a final path that forces replacement of local subs without board approval. Facilities counsel noted the existing AECOM engagement could be extended for a limited period (staff proposed 6 months as a one‑time extension) to buy time for a new procurement and transition.

Action requests: Staff asked the board for authority to negotiate and return with a contract amendment and/or a piggyback agreement and proposed program timeline; staff also proposed to issue an RFQ for a new PMO with a target solicitation and evaluation timeline that could allow a competitively selected PMO in place within roughly nine months.

Bottom line: The board asked staff to return with legally vetted options that preserve continuity for local firms, clarify cost implications and show schedules for finishing the remaining SMART projects. The staff recommendation favors a hybrid approach: shore up internal staffing while engaging a flexible PMO arrangement to accelerate project completion.